I don't want to stop the vote if we can avoid it. However, I have some
misgivings that we may not agree on what we're approving. Everyone may
be hearing what they want to hear.
I am ok with the vote continuing provided that we understand this:
Clarity is the key goal of Derby's coding standards. The coding
guidelines at
http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConvTOC.doc.html are a style
primer, not a law book. Mine this document for good examples but use
your common sense. Feel free to disregard any advice which is religious
in nature or which would make your code brittle. Above all else, write
clearly.
Regards,
-Rick
Kathey Marsden wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
>> I am happy with this clarification.
>
>
> great! That is a relief
>
>> I would prefer that the proposal stated this explicitly so that there
>> is no confusion.
>
>
> If you are ok in principle, I'd rather not stop the vote now if we can
> avoid it. Perhaps you could propose new wording for a subsequent
> revision if you think it is important. The important thing in
> publishing a coding convention is that new developers joining the
> project can set their IDE's/editors a certain way and know if they do
> that they won't hit any tripwires. Just about every new developer in
> this project (except for you) has hit this tripwire. You were keen to
> it having navigated the course before. Most folks coming in to fix
> their bug and get out, don't have time for the traditional code
> formatting hazing ritual and I don't care to subject them to it
> anymore. This has wasted a lot of people a lot of time.
>
> Kathey
>
>